Anonymous wrote:Accepted:

nnat 130
FAT was either 96 or 97%, can't remember for sure right now.

GBRS: unknown (how does everyone else know, did you actually request it?)

Report Card: Generally 3's with occasional 4's and maybe a couple of 2's (seeing each 2's stung a bit, child is not a super genius but he is bright/motivated/engaged. But he can also be messy/careless at times and forgetful, so maybe that's why.)

Filled out parent questionnaire and submitted nothing else. Questionnaire responses focused on giving what I considered were thoughtful and specific examples. Did not select highest score for every trait.

Didn't schmooze/badger the AART teacher or child's teacher.

Child is a Summer birthday.

My impression: FAT score probably carried the greatest weight in the evaluation, as it was harder to prep for this year and most objective measure.

Schmoozing and/or badgering is likely to have a negative effect.

I agree to a point on the FAT but GBRS are key too. IMO

Accepted:

nnat 130
FAT was either 96 or 97%, can't remember for sure right now.

GBRS: unknown (how does everyone else know, did you actually request it?)

Report Card: Generally 3's with occasional 4's and maybe a couple of 2's (seeing each 2's stung a bit, child is not a super genius but he is bright/motivated/engaged. But he can also be messy/careless at times and forgetful, so maybe that's why.)

Filled out parent questionnaire and submitted nothing else. Questionnaire responses focused on giving what I considered were thoughtful and specific examples. Did not select highest score for every trait.

Didn't schmooze/badger the AART teacher or child's teacher.

Child is a Summer birthday.

My impression: FAT score probably carried the greatest weight in the evaluation, as it was harder to prep for this year and most objective measure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

I don't believe this.

I don't believe this either. My DC with NNAT 99% (135), FAT 83%, GBRS 13 didn't get in. I didn't submit WISC though. All 4s in report card with 3s in art.

Scores are not everything. On the other hand, take the post with a grain of salt. This is an anonymous forum, known for trolls who love to get a rise out of people. If its real, perhaps the work samples/commentary were exemplary - that or this poster is messing with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

I don't believe this.

I don't believe this either. My DC with NNAT 99% (135), FAT 83%, GBRS 13 didn't get in. I didn't submit WISC though. All 4s in report card with 3s in art.

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the score discrepancy involves suspicions about cheating/prepping. If your dc is part of a group that preps like crazy, his test scores get mentally downgraded by the committee because they assume prepping and the subjective pieces get more weight. If your dc is AA or hispanic or another group that FCPS would like more of in the AAP population, lower scores still get him in. Just my guess, don't shoot the messenger.

Names are removed from the files when the actual screeners read them. While I agree completely that screeners were instructed this year more than ever to look at "the whole package," I'm not sure they would have been able to discern ethnicity of applicant, barring some obvious reference such as pointing out that child is bilingual or a letter of recommendation from an ethnic school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, had great work samples including fourth grade level math (solving multiple step multiplication and division problems) and a very well written essay.

So what? Since when work samples trump everything else?

Since the screening committee became aware of the extent of prepping for the tests, so they place more emphasis on other evidence.

My child's teacher submitted writing samples that showed the ability to think about and formulate ideas in a mature way. One essay had won an essay contest judged by the school's outside business sponsor.

My guess is the score discrepancy involves suspicions about cheating/prepping. If your dc is part of a group that preps like crazy, his test scores get mentally downgraded by the committee because they assume prepping and the subjective pieces get more weight. If your dc is AA or hispanic or another group that FCPS would like more of in the AAP population, lower scores still get him in. Just my guess, don't shoot the messenger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

I don't believe this.

The poster left out another important number--how much she paid off the AART to pad the comments in the school screening report.

I'm beginning to believe it's a somewhat random process with the chance a single teacher can sink the whole boat a real possibility..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, had great work samples including fourth grade level math (solving multiple step multiplication and division problems) and a very well written essay.

So what? Since when work samples trump everything else?

Since the screening committee became aware of the extent of prepping for the tests, so they place more emphasis on other evidence.

Anonymous wrote:PP, had great work samples including fourth grade level math (solving multiple step multiplication and division problems) and a very well written essay.

So what? Since when work samples trump everything else?

PP, had great work samples including fourth grade level math (solving multiple step multiplication and division problems) and a very well written essay.

Anonymous wrote:DC ACCEPTED. 83% FAT, 121 NNAT, GBRS 11, Wisc 120. Mostly 3s, two 4s, and a couple of 2s on report card. Parent referral.

I don't believe this.

Letters of Rec from religious school teacher, robotics teacher, and karate instructor. I think they really helped show that DC consistently performs well in many different settings. His scores were good, but not a shoe-in (90%).

Anonymous wrote:Who wrote the letters of recommendation for those who got in?

One from a family friend who's known DD her whole life. She's a teacher in another system and highlighted behaviors that her system looks for as GT (they still call it that). I felt like it helped to point out things about DD that weren't included in the GBRS or the parent questionnaire. And DD's scores were not a slam dunk, so maybe it worked.